NYT - Japanese Government Says Decommissioning Fukushima Reactors Will Take 40 Years

[hatrack]

TOKYO — Decommissioning the wrecked reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant will take 40 years and require the use of robots to remove melted fuel that appears to be stuck to the bottom of the reactors’ containment vessels, the Japanese government said on Wednesday.

The predictions were contained in a detailed roadmap for fully shutting down the three reactors, which suffered meltdowns after an earthquake and tsunami struck the plant on March 11. The government had previously predicted it would take 30 years to clean up after the accident at Fukushima, the world’s worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl in 1986.

The nuclear crisis minister, Goshi Hosono, acknowledged that no country has ever had to clean up three destroyed reactors at the same time. Mr. Hosono told reporters the decommissioning faced challenges that were not totally predictable, but “we must do it even though we may face difficulties along the way.”

The plan’s release follows last week’s declaration by Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda that the plant had been put into the equivalent of a “cold shutdown,” a stable state that suggested the runaway reactors had finally been brought under control. Critics, however, immediately challenged that statement, saying it was impossible to call the reactors stable when their fuel had melted through the inner containment vessels, and appeared to be attached to the concrete bottom of outer containment vessels.

EDIT

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/world/asia/japan-needs-40-years-to-decommission-fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-reactors.html?_r=2&ref=earth

[kristopher]

1. Notice there is no mention of cost in the NYT piece...

That's because:

TEPCO omits total cost of decommissioning nuclear reactors from work schedule

Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), the operator of the crippled Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant, did not specify the cost of decommissioning the plant's reactors in its work schedule announced Dec. 21 -- apparently to obscure the possibility of the utility becoming insolvent and no longer viable as a company.

The utility, however, will inevitably come under pressure to process and release accounting information on the snowballing costs of decommissioning the No. 1-4 reactors at the plant, which was crippled in the aftermath of the March 11 Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami.

The government is considering injecting taxpayers' money into the utility and nationalizing it to turn it into an entity dedicated to providing compensation for the nuclear crisis. The government is also poised to launch a full-scale debate on the fate of TEPCO's management with major lenders to the utility.

It is difficult to predict how much it will cost to decommission the four reactors -- a task expected to take up to 40 years and be fraught with difficulties. A government-appointed third-party panel estimated in October that it will cost 1.151 trillion yen to decommission the troubled reactors. TEPCO, meanwhile, has decided to set aside some 940 billion yen for decommissioning.

The utility...
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20111222p2a00m0na019000c.html

[Bob Wallace]

2. 1.151 trillion yen

$14.7 billion US.

Too cheap to meter....

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. But what did they cost to build in the first place?

And what would the decommissioning have cost if there had been no accident?

http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/665644

[font face=Times, Serif][font size=5]$26B cost killed nuclear bid[/font]

2009/07/14 04:30:00
By Tyler Hamilton Energy and Technology Columnist

[font size=3]The Ontario government put its nuclear power plans on hold last month because the bid from Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., the only "compliant" one received, was more than three times higher than what the province expected to pay, the Star has learned.

Sources close to the bidding, one involved directly in one of the bids, said that adding two next-generation Candu reactors at Darlington generating station would have cost around $26 billion.

It means a single project would have wiped out the province's nuclear-power expansion budget for the next 20 years, leaving no money for at least two more multibillion-dollar refurbishment projects.

…

The bid from France's Areva NP also blew past expectations, sources said. Areva's bid came in at $23.6 billion, with two 1,600-megawatt reactors costing $7.8 billion and the rest of the plant costing $15.8 billion. It works out to $7,375 per kilowatt, and was based on a similar cost estimate Areva had submitted for a plant proposed in Maryland.

…[/font][/font]

[Kolesar]

4. Since the public is going to have to pay eventually, TEPCO's shareholder value should disappear now

An American company in TEPCO's circumstance would try to milk dividends for a few years and pay the senior executives well as a way of taking the value out of the company. Like Enron did.

[kristopher]

5. TEPCO appears to be on track to be nationalized

Obstacles loom for TEPCO 'nationalization' plan
December 22, 2011

A government plan to bring Tokyo Electric Power Co. under state control to secure decommissioning costs for the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant faces opposition from the utility among many other hurdles.

Under the plan being discussed within the government, the government-backed Nuclear Damage Liability Facilitation Fund would invest about 1 trillion yen ($12.87 billion) in TEPCO to secure more than two-thirds of its shares.

The investment is designed to ensure that TEPCO will have access to sufficient funds for decommissioning the Fukushima No. 1 plant.

A government third-party committee estimates that about 1.15 trillion yen will be required to decommission the No. 1 to No. 4 reactors damaged by the Great East Japan Earthquake. The No. 5 and No. 6 reactors may have to be decommissioned.

“It is difficult...
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201112220050

All of this is, of course, separate from all other costs associated with the meltdowns. I can't imagine we will ever be able to quantify the full costs; for example what method could be used to assess the cost of impaired response to the tsunami and rebuilding efforts? A specific example of that would be corporations have fled the area; not because of the natural parts of the disaster but because of the long term nuclear problems.

[joshcryer]

6. Good.

[kristopher]

8. Transferring liability to the public is good?

I don't agree. The same people are going to be doing all the work, the only thing that is going to change is that the public is going to pay for it instead of Tepco stockholders.

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. Which way do you think the job will be done better?

1) If a for profit company (with a financial incentive to cut corners) is monitoring the work.

or

2) If a governmental agency is monitoring the work.

[kristopher]

11. If a for-profit company does it under proper regulatory oversight.

Governments can be just as affected by budget as a for profit company. It is only by establishing a clear and bright line between the profit motive for efficiency and the government responsibility for public safety that you have a real hope of optimizing (to the degree humanly possible) the effort.

[OKIsItJustMe]

12. How soon did you want work to begin?

A case in point — The GE cleanup of the Hudson.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2002/2002-04-11-07.html

[font face=Times, Serif][font size=5]General Electric Offers Hudson River Settlement[/font]

[font size=3]ALBANY, New York, April 11, 2002 (ENS) - General Electric (GE) has offered to devise and execute a cleanup plan for the upper Hudson River, hoping to avoid additional lawsuits over the polluted sediments for which the company is blamed.

After battling for two decades to avoid a half billion dollar cleanup project, GE said Tuesday it would begin testing for PCB hotspots in the Hudson this summer, and contract with environmental specialists to dredge contaminated sediments from the river. The company said it would pay for the dredging and reimburse the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for $37 million in previous government expenditures.

GE filed what it called a "good faith offer" with the EPA, volunteering to design a dredging plan to remove sediments laden with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). About 1.3 million pounds of PCBs were deposited by two GE plants that manufactured electric capacitors in Fort Edward and Hudson Falls, New York.

Use of PCBs in capacitor insulation was banned in 1977, but prior to that time, GE had been dumping the chemical for more than 35 years. The Hudson River was declared a Superfund site in 1983.

…[/font][/font]

http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/hhudson.asp

[font face=Times, Serif][font size=5]Historic Hudson River Cleanup to Begin After Years of Delay, But Will GE Finish the Job?[/font]
[font size=4]Under the EPA's unusual agreement with General Electric, the company could escape full responsibility for cleaning up the toxic mess it made in the Hudson River.[/font]

[font size=3]After 30 years of struggle, it seemed that the concerns of local people had finally triumphed over corporate interests in one of the signature battles of the modern environmental movement -- the fight to remove toxic PCBs from New York's Hudson River. In 2002 a landmark EPA decision spurred General Electric, the company that had dumped as many as 1.3 million pounds of cancer-causing PCBs into the Hudson, to create a plan to remove its toxic mess from the river. This historic victory is now tinged with uncertainty, as the EPA and GE have reached a settlement that allows the company to back out after removing only 10 percent of the contaminated sediment targeted for removal, leaving the remainder of the cleanup in doubt.

…

From 1947 to 1977, GE dumped as many as 1.3 million pounds of PCBs into the Hudson, turning a 197-mile stretch of the river into the nation's largest Superfund site. Even today, PCBs still leak into the river from GE's Hudson Falls plant. Under Superfund law, polluters are responsible for cleaning up the messes they make. Yet for years, GE fought the development of a cleanup plan with every tool it could buy, lobbying Congress, attacking the Superfund law in court, and launching a media blitz to spread disinformation about the usefulness of the cleanup, claiming that dredging the river would actually stir up PCBs.

But advocates for the Hudson River stood firm, exposing the scientific holes in GE's claims; the public relations campaign failed to sway residents of the valley, and GE's lobbying efforts failed to move the EPA. The 2002 decision, which spurred GE to design a plan to remove 800 Olympic swimming pools worth of toxic muck from the river, was a landmark victory for the environment, and a blow to corporate polluters hoping to evade their cleanup responsibilities.

GE, however, has been dragging its feet on carrying out the cleanup. Dredging was slated to begin in 2005, but GE has repeatedly requested delays, pushing the start back to 2009. And in October of 2005, the EPA changed tack, rewarding GE's foot-dragging by striking a backroom deal that allowed GE to commit only to completing the first phase of cleanup -- a mere 10 percent of the job. Environmental advocates and government scientists expressed concerns that the agreement would not even ensure adequate performance of that initial phase of the cleanup. Under the Freedom of Information Act, NRDC obtained records spelling out the detailed bases for these scientists' concerns, and filed suit against the EPA and the Department of Justice to compel them to release additional records they had refused to provide.

…[/font][/font]

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d10ed0d99d826b068525735900400c2a/45c36859456cb840852578ab005890a0!OpenDocument

[font face=Times, Serif][font size=5]EPA Marks the Startup of the Final Phase of Hudson River PCB Dredging; 500 Jobs Created By This Cleanup Project[/font]

Release Date: 06/10/2011
Contact Information: Larisa Romanowski, [phone], cell phone [phone]; [e-mail]

[font size=3](Fort Edward, NY) EPA Regional Administrator Judith A. Enck was joined today in Fort Edward, New York by Representative Maurice Hinchey, Representative Paul Tonko and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Joseph Martens to mark the start of the second and final phase of the Hudson River cleanup that began on June 6, 2011. During this phase of dredging, General Electric will remove about 2.4 million cubic yards of sediment from a forty-mile section of the Upper Hudson River between Fort Edward and Troy, NY that is contaminated by polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). PCBs are potentially cancer-causing in people and build up in the fat of fish and animals, increasing in concentration as they move up the food chain. The primary risk to humans is due to the accumulation of PCBs in the body from eating contaminated fish.

“This week, we started the final course of the long awaited cleanup of a treasured and historic river. EPA is grateful for the work and cooperation provided by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the New York State Attorney General’s office. This state and federal partnership is responsible for past progress and we look forward to working with the state and others to remove PCBs from Hudson River,” said Judith A. Enck, EPA Regional Administrator. “EPA looks forward to returning the Hudson River to health so that is can be fully utilized by the people up and down the Hudson Valley.”

“Starting phase two of the Hudson River clean-up project is an important milestone to restore the health of the Hudson River,” New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Joe Martens said. “This project is an important example of how collaboration among government agencies can benefit the people they serve and the area in which they live and work. GE’s commitment to completing Phase 2 will ensure the project continues to progress. DEC looks forward to continuing this productive partnership with the EPA and GE.”

During the current dredging season, which runs to November 2011, mechanical dredges will remove buckets of PCB-contaminated sediment from a 1.5 mile stretch of river, south of the town of Fort Edward. Four dredges will work 24 hours a day, six days a week to remove approximately 350,000 cubic yards of PCB-contaminated sediment from 100 acres of river bottom. Dredging will begin in the western channel of Roger’s Island and move south in the main stem of the river.

…[/font][/font]

[kristopher]

13. I'm not sure of your point

You asked which of two approaches was preferable and I responded that the two options are best combined to achieve, to the extent humanly possible, the optimum outcome.

I don't see where you are going out of that with your subsequent question and cites. If you want to point out that there is a lack of regulatory rigor in general I'd agree. If you want to say that there exists an extraordinarily close relationship between the government and the nuclear industry that has allowed that industry in particular to shape the legislative and regulatory structure heavily in their favor I not only agree but give you a loud "Hear, hear!"

But given your frugal nature with your explanations I'm not sure of where your point lies.

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. Well, this is the model you said you prefer, a for-profit company with government oversight

It took GE 30+ years to get started (fighting every step of the way) and then, once they finally agreed to actually start the cleanup, they wanted to stop with the job partway done.

How about this for another approach?

The EPA is in charge of the cleanup, makes sure the job is done right and charges GE for the work that is done.

[kristopher]

17. I think you'd eventually have a raft of problems just as bad as you now see.

The problem isn't the theory behind the models themselves, it is the corruption of the model by various forces. The least deviation from the ideal is to be found in the business/government model. The US, being arguably the least regulated nation using that model, is not the example to point to. We have led the world down a dark path where corporate control of government has nearly eradicated the government's role as representative of the people in all areas.

That is a separate discussion than the one we were involved in, IMO.

[OKIsItJustMe]

21. Well, I think the motivations are different here

In the “for profit with oversight” model, the “for profit” has an incentive to do just as little as possible.

In the “government run with charge backs” model, the incentive for the work not to be done is removed. (Any corruption is liable to come in the form of cost overruns or kickbacks, but the cleaners have an incentive to get to work, ASAP!)

[kristopher]

22. True.

[kristopher]

23. Actually after considering it a bit I see a problem.

As the publicity surrounding the issue recedes and competing priorities for public dollars emerge there is a strong possibility of shortcuts and lack of funding. That doesn't even get into political systems being polarized and one party trying to screw the other by cutting their "pet projects".

So while what you said is absolutely true short term I'm going to have to stay with my original conclusion that a *properly balanced* hydrid is the best approach.

[OKIsItJustMe]

31. Lack of funding isn’t a problem

Remember, its a charge back system. The polluters are paying for it (the EPA is just in charge of seeing that the work gets done.)

[kristopher]

32. Anything that is legislated can change.

It happens all the time.

[OKIsItJustMe]

33. And your point here would be?

Last edited Fri Dec 23, 2011, 03:46 PM - Edit history (2)

Following this principle absolutely no system would be useful, so, then, logically, apparently no system should be put in place.

You are too prone to black and white thinking, “if it isn’t ideal, it is worthless.”

http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=191669353

[font face=Times, Serif][font size=3]Vanity of vanities, says the Teacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity.[/font][/font]

Black and white is not the way of the real world. You need to embrace not just grays, but colors!

[kristopher]

34. It isn't black and white thinking

It is forgetfulness on you part. I've already stated the reasoning above:
"The problem isn't the theory behind the models themselves, it is the corruption of the model by various forces. The least deviation from the ideal is to be found in the business/government model."

By separating the money from the mandate you create a barrier that doesn't exist at either extreme. It isn't perfect, it can be corrupted, but it works better than either alternative at the extreme on the whole.

[OKIsItJustMe]

35. “Anything that is legislated can change.”

So, following your reasoning, the system you propose is useless.

[kristopher]

36. Apparently you've lost the ability to reason...

...and follow a discussion.

We're done.

[kristopher]

14. Does this describe the view you are laying out?

Gov't should play leading role in decommissioning crippled nuclear reactors

...

Due to high levels of radiation, it is extremely difficult for workers to enter the buildings housing the crippled reactors, requiring the development of 14 kinds of new technology, including a remotely-controlled robot, to recover and manage melted fuel.

"We've instructed the plant operator not to delay the work because of high costs," Goshi Hosono, state minister for nuclear accident countermeasures, told a news conference.

Still, some government officials are skeptical of the feasibility of the decommissioning plan. "We don't know whether the reactors can be decommissioned and dismantled in 30 to 40 years until the work is actually done," one of them said.

If the development of necessary technology proves a serious challenge, the time and money required to decommission and dismantle the reactors will certainly increase....

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/perspectives/news/20111222p2a00m0na005000c.html

[OKIsItJustMe]

16. The lead paragraphs sums it up nicely

[font face=Times, Serif][font size=3]The government should play a leading role in decommissioning nuclear reactors at the tsunami-hit Fukushima No. 1 power plant to ensure the work progresses as quickly as possible.

…[/font][/font]

[kristopher]

19. I can see that perspective.

My point was different, however. What I was attempting to point to was the fact that the political/economic structure that promotes the use of nuclear power has set up the system where it *must* transfer to the public sphere what *should* have been a responsibility the corporation was able to assume.

A central enabling strategy of that industry has been the false claim that their safety performance means liability on on par with all other industries should not apply to them. Simply put, we could see this coming from a mile away and we let them get away with it.

[tinrobot]

25. Why should anyone profit off of a major disaster?

Maybe they can hire Halliburton to do the work... just like BP did with their disaster.

[kristopher]

29. You have it wrong.

The real question is "why should there be a major disaster that the responsible people do not have to pay for?"

It isn't about profiting from the disaster. In this case the responsible entity will try to not spend and it will be the role of the regulator to ensure they do what is required none the less.

The failure, however, is already a thing of the past - they never should have been allowed to build the fucking plants in the first place without bearing the financial burden of paying for proper insurance.

[XemaSab]

30. To play Devil's Advocate here

Governments are not equipped to deal with disasters like this, and nonprofits could not possibly have the resources to deal with things like the BP oil spill or the Fukishima disaster.

Only big engineering companies like Halliburton, Fluor, URS, Bechtel, and other massive giants can handle these disasters, precisely because they created the disasters in the first place.

[joshcryer]

18. Nuclear shouldn't be in the hands of for-profit corporations.

They make too many bad choices for profit.

[kristopher]

20. And energy shouldn't be in the hands of governments that amass power over people.

That is a primary problem with centralized power systems even when the government is only one interest group. The government should take its responsibility for social welfare seriously and business should press for profits. It is the tension between those two properly balanced forces that brings the most benefit.

[joshcryer]

24. Profit always trumps environment. Strong regulations can help...

...but certain energy sources are more ideally handled by a nationalized system.

[kristopher]

28. What energy sources? Nuclear?

that is a horrible idea. That adds secrecy based on national security to the mix - an ingredient in the accumulation of power that is like pouring gasoline on a fire.

[tinrobot]

26. Of course... letting the likes of Enron run wild makes perfect sense.

[kristopher]

27. Nothing I wrote endorses that.

You need to read the entire thread since you are drawing a false conclusion.

[pscot]

7. They've been decomissioning Hanford

for almost 50 years. They finally seem to have it under control, so that's good. But Fukushima may take a hundred. And still be dangerous.

[Bob Wallace]

9. Hanford, the gift that keeps on giving...

December 21, 2011

"It appears that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) failed to disclose safety violations and inspection report during a public comment period and hid the report in the holiday shuffle.


(HANFORD, Wash.) - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced yesterday that it issued safety violations for five events this spring and summer at the Northwest’s sole commercial nuclear reactor, located on the Hanford Nuclear eservation. The incidents included loss of over four thousand gallons of reactor coolant and water twice in four months, and the insertion of reactor control rods when operators believed they were withdrawing the rods. The NRC found that:


“(O)perators chose to proceed with work when it was not approved, was outside the bounds of the procedure, or when they experienced unexpected plant conditions. In these instances, conservative decision making was not evident. In a few instances, operators suspected that something was wrong but didn’t speak up.”"

Good to see that Homer isn't on unemployment....